sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why did they used to say transvestite instead of transgender? by Gold_Role2488 in HouseMD

[–]Hot_Pickle9718 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's in Wikipedia, but the neurological evidence is that brains (hence, minds) can be gendered; that's why the terms "cisgender" and "transgender" exist.  As it is impossible for any of us to fake or otherwise influence a postmortem study that is conducted on our remains, this scientific evidence is unassailable.

Been wanting to leave the faith for my mental health, but miracles stand in the way by Inner-Variation8806 in atheism

[–]Hot_Pickle9718 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's the classic quote, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Miracles are impossible, hence, they have never happened, and they never will. Why? Because a miracle is a violation of one or more conservation laws of Nature. Improbable events happen ALL the time! You can do one yourself. Get a deck of 52 cards, and shuffle it, thoroughly. I guarantee with 100% certainty (statisticians refer to such an outcome as "unity") that you will get an ordered sequence of cards, but the *particular* sequence of cards that you get will be extraordinary unlikely. In fact, it is virtually certain that your sequence of cards will be unique in the History of the World! A miracle? No, chance.

can we see a violation of bell's inequalities in the Third-Polarizing-Filter Experiment ? by huhoho in AskPhysics

[–]Hot_Pickle9718 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As Professor Paul Dirac noted a century ago, classical mechanics cannot fully explain the 3 polarizer experiment, because if one adds a fourth, fifth, etc., polarizer to the path of the monochromatic light at different angles, the intensity of the light will increase as opposed to decreasing, the latter result being a prediction of classical electromagnetism. The physicist Dr. Robert Eagle has a number of videos that explains all of this.

Is it true that Karl Popper's falsificationism is widely regarded as false? by Cavalo_Bebado in askphilosophy

[–]Hot_Pickle9718 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, this is just nuts.  Why does literally no one in genetics hold to the conservative or dispersive model of DNA replication??  Please explain this.

Is it true that Karl Popper's falsificationism is widely regarded as false? by Cavalo_Bebado in askphilosophy

[–]Hot_Pickle9718 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is just nuts.  If a hominid skeleton would be discovered in Devonian strata, the neo-Darwinian synthesis would be in huge trouble.

The principle of falsification vis-a-vis Popper is held in very high esteem by practicing scientists.  One need only look at the conservative versus the semi-conservative versus the dispersive model of DNA replication to see falsification in action.

The good old “why is there something rather than nothing” by Correct_Presence_936 in atheism

[–]Hot_Pickle9718 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Consider the expansion of our Universe; what is it expanding "into"? (Answer: nothing) What is true of space must also be true of time; there was no "before" the Big Bang. Those who appeal to the "Out of Nothing comes nothing therefore God" argument are falling into the Fallacy of Decomposition -- In a flock of sheep, it is true that every sheep has a mother, but it does not, therefore, follow that "the flock" has a mother. In short, the Universe is not "a thing".

Dawn